Shooting in Conn. School

[quote name='cancerman1120']I see what you are saying but if I am being honest with myself I have to agree that if I was involved in a shooting like this I would much rather have a gun than not have one. The reality for me though is that I have no interest in carrying a loaded weapon around and think we need to address the larger issues on why this country in particular loves to shoot each other. I think the problem is that pro-gun advocates believe that having the gun is the long term solution. I want a country that does not need to have the gun and there is no reason why that cannot be the case.[/QUOTE]

I'm not really concerned that any one person would like a gun in that situation, I'm thinking of the whole. I know that's hard for some folks here, that tend to only care about individual rights, not saying that's you btw.


For the record, the recognition of individual gun rights is a fairly new phenomenon. We used to recognize that it was in regards to a militia, something that the fuckbag republicunts helped to change.
 
[quote name='Calipso']Enter thread with expectations of teenage liberals who don't own guns to spout emotional anti-gun posts.

Not disappointed.[/QUOTE]

Because anti-gun people have to own guns? WTF kind of argument is that?
 
[quote name='Clak']


For the record, the recognition of individual gun rights is a fairly new phenomenon. We used to recognize that it was in regards to a militia, something that the fuckbag republicunts helped to change.[/QUOTE]

Citation?
 
[quote name='GBAstar']

Let's not mention that in the gun related deaths about 1/3 are suicides. Bloomberg :roll:[/QUOTE]

Yeah we all know people who kill themselves with guns don't really die (more liberal propaganda)..,they go live on a farm in upstate Vermont
 
[quote name='mykevermin']http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10292254&postcount=245[/QUOTE]

Liberal historical revisionism at its finest. A writer for the New Yorker is hardly a historical authority. All you would have to do to debunk his claim would be to look to the bill of rights and federalist papers to see that the collective rights were always in play.

I encourage you to check out Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England by St George Tucker. He was a lawyer, Revolutionary War militia officer, legal scholar, and later a U.S. District Court judge (appointed by James Madison in 1813), who wrote of the Second Amendment:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.​
Click to expand...

For which he later elaborated:

This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty... The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='usickenme']Yeah we all know people who kill themselves with guns don't really die (more liberal propaganda)..,they go live on a farm in upstate Vermont[/QUOTE]

Right... because I'm sure that every one of those suicides would have been eliminated with more firearm regulation. Gotcha.

I wonder how many of the suicides happened in "gun free zones" or with illegal arms?
 
I don't think Toobin is arguing that nobody made that argument until 30-40 years ago, temp - certainly it came up in writings and arguments throughout our history.

His point was that it was reviewed and upheld in the past 30-40 years, making the lynchpin of the NRA argument ("orginalism") to be an extraordinary farce.

An additional point is that the language of the second amendment is so vague so as to make anyone who would claim the mantle of "originalist" look foolish; the wording is extraordinarily ambiguous, therefore anyone arguing that it is clear is doing so from a perspective that is not necessarily intentionally dishonest as much as it is simply unable (or unwilling) to see alternative perspectives.

Let me bring Toobin's point to you in the form of a question - should legislation be proposed to eliminate the "gun show" exemption for background checks and registrations for firearms purchases?
 
[quote name='Clak']I'm not really concerned that any one person would like a gun in that situation, I'm thinking of the whole. I know that's hard for some folks here, that tend to only care about individual rights, not saying that's you btw.


For the record, the recognition of individual gun rights is a fairly new phenomenon. We used to recognize that it was in regards to a militia, something that the fuckbag republicunts helped to change.[/QUOTE]

Orly, Mister PhD in American history.. Please do tell.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I don't think Toobin is arguing that nobody made that argument until 30-40 years ago, temp - certainly it came up in writings and arguments throughout our history.

His point was that it was reviewed and upheld in the past 30-40 years, making the lynchpin of the NRA argument ("orginalism") to be an extraordinary farce.

An additional point is that the language of the second amendment is so vague so as to make anyone who would claim the mantle of "originalist" look foolish; the wording is extraordinarily ambiguous, therefore anyone arguing that it is clear is doing so from a perspective that is not necessarily intentionally dishonest as much as it is simply unable (or unwilling) to see alternative perspectives.

Let me bring Toobin's point to you in the form of a question - should legislation be proposed to eliminate the "gun show" exemption for background checks and registrations for firearms purchases?[/QUOTE]

:rofl:

Do tell, what "gun show" exemption do you speak of? I've heard it mentioned from time to time, and I can't seem to figure it out. I'm assuming it was something made up by people who have never been to a gun show.

I've been to plenty, and I have not once, NOT ONCE, been able to leave the place with a gun that didn't involved a background check. They even have police officers trolling the parking lots to keep people from making private sales.
 
1) please don't disengage from the discussion about Toobin's points.

2) you're going to claim there is no such thing as a gun show loophole and your evidence is nothing more than personal experience? Please offer up more than that. Please don't bring your C game to the discussion. It's not becoming of you.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']:rofl:

Do tell, what "gun show" exemption do you speak of? I've heard it mentioned from time to time, and I can't seem to figure it out. I'm assuming it was something made up by people who have never been to a gun show.

I've been to plenty, and I have not once, NOT ONCE, been able to leave the place with a gun that didn't involved a background check. They even have police officers trolling the parking lots to keep people from making private sales.[/QUOTE]

It just refers to the practice of being able to buy guns from non FFL people with no back ground check.. Like a friend or something.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']1) please don't disengage from the discussion about Toobin's points.

2) you're going to claim there is no such thing as a gun show loophole and your evidence is nothing more than personal experience? Please offer up more than that. Please don't bring your C game to the discussion. It's not becoming of you.[/QUOTE]

It isn't a loop hole :roll:
 
[quote name='GBAstar']Right... because I'm sure that every one of those suicides would have been eliminated with more firearm regulation. Gotcha.

I wonder how many of the suicides happened in "gun free zones" or with illegal arms?[/QUOTE]

Somebody actually shot themselves in the head at my high school during my senior year, I actually thought about how much worst that could have been if he wanted to take out some people. I don't know how precarious the situation actually is but I know it has at least happened.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='mykevermin']1) please don't disengage from the discussion about Toobin's points.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, I took it as a backpedal. What do I need to comment on? Oh, some people could see it another way? Obviously. We wouldn't be here talking if that weren't the case, that doesn't make them right. As far as legal interpretation, show me some case history where anyone before the last 40 years was convicted of possessing weapons only deemed suitable for the "militia."
[quote name='mykevermin']
2) you're going to claim there is no such thing as a gun show loophole and your evidence is nothing more than personal experience? Please offer up more than that. Please don't bring your C game to the discussion. It's not becoming of you.[/QUOTE]

You're the one making the claim. Doesn't that mean YOU should be providing the evidence. C game indeed.

[quote name='Tiako']It just refers to the practice of being able to buy guns from non FFL people with no back ground check.. Like a friend or something.[/QUOTE]

So in other words, no "gun show" at all. Lol.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Sorry, I took it as a backpedal. What do I need to comment on? Oh, some people could see it another way? Obviously. We wouldn't be here talking if that weren't the case, that doesn't make them right. As far as legal interpretation, show me some case history where anyone before the last 40 years was convicted of possessing weapons only deemed suitable for the "militia."


You're the one making the claim. Doesn't that mean YOU should be providing the evidence. C game indeed.



So in other words, no "gun show" at all. Lol.[/QUOTE]


Well I assume the term gun show loop hole is a bit outdated thing to call it.. But I am guessing back in the day people would go to gun shows and trade or sell with other non vendors. So their could be a gun show involved or it could be a friend you know..

I suppose what people want is for us to trade or sell a gun we have to now go to a gun store.. Pay their bullshit fee and while we are at it.. A fee to gov for the hell of it.. Then fill out paper work. Send the paper work off and when it is done we can exchange guns.
 
man I hate that line of "joe schmoe" from the 1770s said this so we have to take it as to what the constitution really meant.

They had every opportunity to write the second amendment without a qualifier and they didn't. I give a fuck what Tucker wrote elsewhere.

as for the "no gun show" bull- an estimated 25-50% of sales AT GUN SHOWS are from unlicensed dealers and in 33 states that means no background check. Dude, don't be obtuse
 
I don't think it is unreasonable at all to make private parties complete a gun sale with a licensed broker---assuming that the fees involved to do so aren't ridiculous.

I'd be all for that.

In the state I live in a lot of gun sales are done through craigslist or like services and I think it takes accountability away from the seller and as a seller you should be responsible and accountable for who you sell your guns to or buy them from.

This way it prevents people from buying guns that were previously used in crimes and absolves them from blame if they sell a gun that ends up being used in a crime because they went through a broker.
 
[quote name='usickenme']man I hate that line of "joe schmoe" from the 1770s said this so we have to take it as to what the constitution really meant.

They had every opportunity to write the second amendment without a qualifier and they didn't. I give a fuck what Tucker wrote elsewhere.

as for the "no gun show" bull- an estimated 25-50% of sales AT GUN SHOWS are from unlicensed dealers and in 33 states that means no background check. Dude, don't be obtuse[/QUOTE]

I agree they should get rid of FFLs all together they cost a ton and hurt business owners in the long run
 
[quote name='usickenme']man I hate that line of "joe schmoe" from the 1770s said this so we have to take it as to what the constitution really meant.

They had every opportunity to write the second amendment without a qualifier and they didn't. I give a fuck what Tucker wrote elsewhere.

as for the "no gun show" bull- an estimated 25-50% of sales AT GUN SHOWS are from unlicensed dealers and in 33 states that means no background check. Dude, don't be obtuse[/QUOTE]

:lol: The large majority of which sell t-shirts, pins, furs and other non-firearm related items.

Again, something made up by people who have never been to a gun show.

Bill of Rights, Federalist papers, interpretations from someone who was IN the militia during the war and an untold number of writing specifically from the founders that detail our relationship to firearms. What a bunch of bull! :roll:
 
[quote name='elessar123']Because anti-gun people have to own guns? WTF kind of argument is that?[/QUOTE]

Funny thing is, I am a gun owner. I have handled guns all my life. These cretins are gun fetishists.

There is a difference.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Funny thing is, I am a gun owner. I have handled guns all my life. These cretins are gun fetishists.

There is a difference.[/QUOTE]

Anyone who likes, shows interest in, or defends anything more than I do is fetishizing it. -Msut
______________


Obviously, if one espouses that they want to ban all person-to-person sales it will get little to no traction; However, call it a GUNSHOW LOOPHOLE and you've got a marketable ploy to pass federal prohibitions.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']show me some case history where anyone before the last 40 years was convicted of possessing weapons only deemed suitable for the "militia."[/quote]

Well, convicted of possessing weapons suitable for the militia? Were you as drunk as I was last night, or are you asking me to cite an impossible case (i.e., the militia clause is *precisely* where people wouldn't be able to find it unconstitutional.

At any rate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

Attorneys for the United States argued four points:

3) The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
4) The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230" was never used in any militia organization.
Click to expand...

Derrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrp. Your stubborn "no u" obstinance doesn't appear to have helped you. But that's the funny thing about arguing politics - I can cite a *Supreme Court* case that satisfied precisely what you're asking for, and it won't change your mind in the slightest. Then, in a cruelly ironic twist, you'll claim that I'm an ideologue.

You're the one making the claim. Doesn't that mean YOU should be providing the evidence. C game indeed.
Click to expand...

Looks like the left has it's own James O'Keefe: http://www.gunshowundercover.org/
 
I've been to gun shows, I know how easy it is to buy there. An older looking kid could buy at a show with no age check. Those dealers don't give a fuck.
 
Next thing you know I'll be arguing crazy town shit, like you can't buy beer or tobacco underage in the US. Perhaps temp would like me to cite court cases of that happening, too, since he doesn't believe it.
 
I've been to gun shows, I know how easy it is to buy there. An older looking kid could buy at a show with no age check. Those dealers don't give a .
Click to expand...
Have you ever bought a gun at a gun show? Or you just feel like that is how easy it would be?
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']Have you ever bought a gun at a gun show? Or you just feel like that is how easy it would be?[/QUOTE]
I'm in my mid-thirties, with gray peppered beard, and I didn't have my DL last show I visited- a table seller wouldn't even take my money to "hold" a lower receiver (just a large serial numbered part for the uninformed) until I could come back with ID .
Dohdough is talking out of his ass and he knows it.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Well, convicted of possessing weapons suitable for the militia? Were you as drunk as I was last night, or are you asking me to cite an impossible case (i.e., the militia clause is *precisely* where people wouldn't be able to find it unconstitutional.[/QUOTE]

Maybe it's impossible because it has never happened before? Nah, can't be that!

[quote name='mykevermin']
At any rate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller
[/QUOTE]

:lol: Looking at the case documents, there's no a single mention of militia. It simply set up a classicfication system for NFA weapons. No militia membership required, you just have to purchase a tax stamp. You REALLY scraped the bottom of the barrel for that one. Which....

[quote name='mykevermin']Derrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrp. Your stubborn "no u" obstinance doesn't appear to have helped you. But that's the funny thing about arguing politics - I can cite a *Supreme Court* case that satisfied precisely what you're asking for, and it won't change your mind in the slightest. Then, in a cruelly ironic twist, you'll claim that I'm an ideologue. [/QUOTE]

...makes this all the more funny.


[quote name='mykevermin']
Looks like the left has it's own James O'Keefe: http://www.gunshowundercover.org/[/QUOTE]

They're breaking the law. That's hardly a loophole. Would you say mugging somebody is a loophole to getting a job? Bah hah hah hah.

[quote name='Clak']I've been to gun shows, I know how easy it is to buy there. An older looking kid could buy at a show with no age check. Those dealers don't give a fuck.[/QUOTE]

Bullshit.

[quote name='mykevermin']Next thing you know I'll be arguing crazy town shit, like you can't buy beer or tobacco underage in the US. Perhaps temp would like me to cite court cases of that happening, too, since he doesn't believe it.[/QUOTE]

So in other words, "DEFLECT! DEFLECT!"
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']Have you ever bought a gun at a gun show? Or you just feel like that is how easy it would be?[/QUOTE]
Me, no I've never bought because there wasn't anything I wanted. I buy from local shops so I know where they are if I have a problem. I've been with friends and family and stood right there while they paid with no no more than a "thanks for your business!". Last time was with my uncle when he bought a shotgun. I tend to stick to smaller caliber bolt action rifles, simply because I find them more fun for shooting targets. I'm more accurate with my .22 bolt action rifle than my friend with his big, bad AR-15.:lol:

Also, around here you'll sometimes see a few at the flea market as well. I could buy plenty and never be hassled about it. I don't think the dealers feel like they should have to do anything anyway, that it isn't their place.
 
[quote name='h3llbring3r']I'm in my mid-thirties, with gray peppered beard, and I didn't have my DL last show I visited- a table seller wouldn't even take my money to "hold" a lower receiver (just a large serial numbered part for the uninformed) until I could come back with ID .
Dohdough is talking out of his ass and he knows it.[/QUOTE]

You might want to check yourself for senility or dyslexia if Clak=dohdough.:rofl:
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']:

Bill of Rights, Federalist papers, interpretations from someone who was IN the militia during the war and an untold number of writing specifically from the founders that detail our relationship to firearms. What a bunch of bull! :roll:[/QUOTE]

You're right, the FF hatch a brilliant plan

"Hey everyone lets put the REAL meaning of what we intend, not in the document we are crafting, deliberating, and signing but some obscure, non-binding side documents, that most people won't even know about"
 
[quote name='dohdough']You might want to check yourself for senility or dyslexia if Clak=dohdough.:rofl:[/QUOTE]

Well if he's in his 30s and already going grey, he may have some sort of Benjamin Button problem. :lol:
Maybe between him and Temp we'll get a solid month worth of posting before they retreat to the troll den.

I seriously feel like every time they decide to come shit on our floor, we do them the same kindness.
 
[quote name='dohdough']You might want to check yourself for senility or dyslexia if Clak=dohdough.:rofl:[/QUOTE]
Apologies are in order, forgive me DD. Clak was posting out his ass and "shitting on the floor" and not you in that instance.
 
[quote name='Clak']Well if he's in his 30s and already going grey, he may have some sort of Benjamin Button problem. :lol:
Maybe between him and Temp we'll get a solid month worth of posting before they retreat to the troll den.

I seriously feel like every time they decide to come shit on our floor, we do them the same kindness.[/QUOTE]

There's that cop-out again. It's funny, every time I call you guys on it, you can't seem to tell me how much of our lives have to be spent arguing in the vs forum before we're considered legitimate posters. It must suck having people come in and call you on your bullshit, so I understand the want for us to just go away, but does it really have to be a full time job for us?

In the meantime, tell me again about how our founders wrote the constituion without thinking there would technilogical advancements or changes in society. You still wear a tricorne don't you? :lol:
 
[quote name='usickenme']You're right, the FF hatch a brilliant plan

"Hey everyone lets put the REAL meaning of what we intend, not in the document we are crafting, deliberating, and signing but some obscure, non-binding side documents, that most people won't even know about"[/QUOTE]

The meaning is pretty clear to me, but then again, I understand how commas work. I'm pointing to those other documents as supporting evidence since the first bit seemed to fly over your head.

With that said, don't take any of this personally. I think you're an awesome poster and you seem to be a legit nice person. It's ok if we disagree.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']The meaning is pretty clear to me, but then again, I understand how commas work. I'm pointing to those other documents as supporting evidence since the first bit seemed to fly over your head.

With that said, don't take any of this personally. I think you're an awesome poster and you seem to be a legit nice person. It's ok if we disagree.[/QUOTE]

I never take "vs. threads" personally so no worries there.

Didn't fly over my head and Commas don't generally mean "just ignore this first part". And FYI, as passed by the congress, there was a comma between Arms and Shall not be infringed. Regardless, I think the Heller ruling negates some of my personal grumbling about the vague intent of the 2nd (even if I don't agree with it)

and I just simply don't believe the movie National Treasure is a documentary.
 
[quote name='usickenme']I never take "vs. threads" personally so no worries there.

Didn't fly over my head and Commas don't generally mean "just ignore this first part". And FYI, as passed by the congress, there was a comma between Arms and Shall not be infringed. Regardless, I think the Heller ruling negates some of my personal grumbling about the vague intent of the 2nd (even if I don't agree with it)

and I just simply don't believe the movie National Treasure is a documentary.[/QUOTE]

I just find it hard to believe that you would think, that after establishing a country, a feat that could have only been done with an armed populace, that you would think that all of the sudden, the founders would seek to limit individual liberty (the very thing they were fighting for) and disarm the public. Read anything by Jefferson, do you really think that was his intent? Also, post constituion, states included this right in their own state constitutions (a list with wordings I can provide upon request).
 
Ha Ha Ha! After a week to think it over the NRAs response to this? Put armed police officers in every school. All 98,000 of them. Funny that the organization that says guns are needed by its citizens to protect against government tyranny literally is asking for a "police state" in our schools. Ha Ha Ha...they have run out of excuses.

“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said at a news conference in Washington.

Guess what might also help? Not so many guns in the hands of bad guys!


http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...c7d4ae-4b8b-11e2-9a42-d1ce6d0ed278_story.html
 
[quote name='cancerman1120']Ha Ha Ha! After a week to think it over the NRAs response to this? Put armed police officers in every school. All 98,000 of them. Funny that the organization that says guns are needed by its citizens to protect against government tyranny literally is asking for a "police state" in our schools. Ha Ha Ha...they have run out of excuses.

“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said at a news conference in Washington.

Guess what might also help? Not so many guns in the hands of bad guys!


http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...c7d4ae-4b8b-11e2-9a42-d1ce6d0ed278_story.html[/QUOTE]

And how have past gun laws done at keeping guns out of the hands of bad guys? Seriously, this conversation is getting circular. You guys just keep bringing up the same bad points over and over again.

Oh, but good first point though.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']And how have past gun laws done at keeping guns out of the hands of bad guys? Seriously, this conversation is getting circular. You guys just keep bringing up the same bad points over and over again.

Oh, but good first point though.[/QUOTE]

Well I will take 1 for 2 on that I guess. ;)
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']As you should! It is now on my list of "issues" with the NRA speech. I hope you won't mind if I reuse it elsewhere. :D[/QUOTE]

Not a problem. :D
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']I just find it hard to believe that you would think, that after establishing a country, a feat that could have only been done with an armed populace, that you would think that all of the sudden, the founders would seek to limit individual liberty (the very thing they were fighting for) and disarm the public. Read anything by Jefferson, do you really think that was his intent? Also, post constituion, states included this right in their own state constitutions (a list with wordings I can provide upon request).[/QUOTE]

No I simply believe that arming the populace was tied to a specific purpose (by a comma ;) ). Clearly it was a different time. So reading all of Jefferson's gun quotes might give one a warm fuzzy for their weapon, it's barely relevant. I mean no one his holding out Jefferson's thoughts on women to how we should treat them today.

And quite frankly, I am baffled you brought up the old "disarming the public" red herring. Look, I'm not some pie-in-the-sky hippie. I recognize the value and necessity of (some) guns in the hands of (some) people. My dad is a former cop, he taught me to respect and fear guns.
 
[quote name='cancerman1120']

“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said at a news conference in Washington.

Guess what might also help? Not so many guns in the hands of bad guys!

[/QUOTE]

I literally saw this quote a dozen times on Facebook from various people I know. It's idiotic. The ONLY thing? Spare me. Sure it's one thing that might be helpful (often time it is not) but that fact that LaPierre stooped to message board fodder shows what a nut the guy is.

my choice quote is

"This is the beginning of a serious conversation. We won't be taking any questions."
 
Shame about all this crazy new media like Natural Born Killers, Splatterhouse, American Psycho, a ten year old flash game, and Mortal Kombat poisoning today's youth?
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Shame about all this crazy new media like Natural Born Killers, Splatterhouse, American Psycho, a ten year old flash game, and Mortal Kombat poisoning today's youth?[/QUOTE]

Virtual guns are much worse than real guns
 
[quote name='usickenme']And quite frankly, I am baffled you brought up the old "disarming the public" red herring. Look, I'm not some pie-in-the-sky hippie. I recognize the value and necessity of (some) guns in the hands of (some) people.[/QUOTE]

Spend a few minutes reading back through this thread and you'll see a history of not engaging in arguments, but moving goalposts (eg, turning a discussion on fun control into your aforementioned red herring). Don't be shocked. I cite us v miller, where the Supreme Court agreed to reverse a decision about individual rights to gun ownership (since he asked to find one case, I did). He pithily dismisses it and goes about crying.

Look at it this way: he's arguing about unbridled, indisputable certainty of the second amendment. And he's arguing that there is no room for interpreting it any way but the way he has...by fighting over the meaning of words, the order of clauses and placement of clauses.

:lol:

Oh, while LaPierre was arguing that we should spend billions of dollars to militarize our schools, this happened: http://m.gawker.com/5970497/while-t...d-down-a-road-in-pennsylvania-shooting-people

We clearly need military blockades on our highways now, too, yes Wayne?

Or, perhaps to satisfy temp, well put these soldiers a few hundred yards away from the roads. You know, in outposts. Because the difference between a police state and a free society is only a few hundred yards. :rofl:
 
[quote name='usickenme']Virtual guns are much worse than real guns[/QUOTE]
Well, the joke I was going for was that, with the exception of GTA (which hasn't released a full, proper game since 2008), all the "corrupting media" mentioned is old an irrelevant. American Psycho came out in 2000. Natural Born Killers is from 1994. Splattherhouse is from the 80s and 90s and nobody cared about its 2010 remake. Mortal Kombat hasn't been relevant for multiple console generations. If you're going to scapegoat, you should probably try to get a goat that hasn't already died of old age.

And it's still less ridiculous than "armed guards at every school".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top